Not the same, but not completely different either. Just like Tiger Woods' coach may not have the muscle memory, mental toughness and/or physical characteristics to make him a great golfer, a poker coach may not have the mental stamina and emotional control to be a great poker player; in either case, the coach may be a great coach nevertheless. The fact that poker is a purely "mental" sport only affects the analogy slightly.

The thing is, we really have no way of knowing whether a prospective coach has tilt issues or whether he just sucks. Unless he has vast theoretical knowledge backed up by two world-class players (sbrugby and skjervoy) as in the case of LearnedFromTV.

Of course any breakeven coach is going to claim they have tilt problems and dont have the emotional fortitude to win. But how do we know thats why they are losing? What if they just suck?

who cares

/thread

+100.

cliffnotes

1. If you play micro and ssnl fullring -> get coaching from SplitSuit, Mpethy, and NL_Fool.
2. Don't listen to anything Spino1 says
3. Profit! ...if you put in the work

You're an idiot. Please stop posting in this thread.

And the golf analogy being thrown about is embarrassing.

+1000 about the golf analogy... every time i read the "even tiger woods has a coach" line it puts me on tilt

a much better comparison would be chess, where elite players are usually coached / consulted by multiple GMs and at lower levels you'd hardly ever have a worse player as a coach

really have to commend mpethy on answering every question thrown at him, i kinda feel thats how coaches should be vetted, i.e. people asking questions on their thread and that stuff being discussed in public rather than via pms where inconsistencies aren't as easy to spot

Golf coach isn't a great example to use given ******s instantly believe golf is all about physical strength, flexability, and natural talent. But golf coaches, who are only decent players themselves, can take a talentless hack and make him a solid to good golfer over time. It's obv better to find a great coach who also is a great player but it's not a requirement when yr talking about some newb off the street.

Even a 15 HC could coach a fat newb and turn them into solid player if 1. They were good at coaching (which has nothing to do with if they are a good/great player) and 2. The student is able to put in the time, work and effort. Said student could probably do all the research n work themselves but it's just easier to hire someone who already knows it and can explain it
The is true with countless types of coaches.

Everyone already knows that people can be great coaches for sport without being as good as the people they are coaching. The whole point is poker coaching is completely unrelated to golf coaching. What it is related to is another math based game - chess - would you take chess coaching off a guy struggling with the game? No, what would be the point. You'd only take coaching off someone better than you. How do you know they are better than you - their results. It's the same in poker and thats why results matter when it comes to paying someone to give you coaching.

meh one other thing also that might change it is the end goal in poker is to make money. So there can be someone who could probably win at 2ptbb or something at a limit but instead they decide to 24-table and make sne and breakeven. The problem when looking at graphs is the true 0 really is not the horizontal line because of rake and rakeback. For example a 4ptbb winner is not really winning twice that of a 2ptbb winner even though the graph would make it look like it. If it's small stakes rake is usually 3ptbb so that's like one's a 5 and other is a 7ptbb winner before rake. But the biggest thing could be that I can see there being some decent coaches who just put in a ton of volume so they make more money (per hour and just total) but their total after rake before rakeback is not impressive at all. I mean over a year's time there are people with negative PTR's who have made more than some 3ptbb winners at the same limit.

That said most of those guys don't usually coach because they're trying to squeeze every hour into playing, but just one point where ability might not lead directly to winnings. Also sometimes maybe they don't make more playing more tables but they just play too many tables. This is actually a pretty common problem imo. So their error in playing is deciding how many tables and hours to play. They could be qualified to coach but results aren't there just because they try to play too much. Not using any specific coaches here just generality of one reason why a coach with an ugly graph may be a good coach. Definitely not the norm though

But also lol at coaches using the excuse of "I tilt". If they tilt too much to the point where they could be crushing but instead are breakeven maybe they should focus their time on working on mental game instead of focusing their time on teaching others. Again a generality because I don't know any of the specific coaches being mentioned here.

It is however morally wrong and misleading, Also in the UK it is an offence to misrepresent services through any advertisement,